1.According to philosopher Robert Nozick, when the government takes even a dollar from Bill Gates, a billionaire, and gives it to a poor person, it is like forcing Gates to work for the poor person

1.According to philosopher Robert Nozick, when the government takes even a dollar from Bill Gates, a billionaire, and gives it to a poor person, it is like forcing Gates to work for the poor person. Is Nozick right to think that redistributive taxation is like forced labor? Should there be no redistributive taxation whatsoever? As always: WHY?
just one page

question 2,
Utilitarianism draws no distinctions between one person’s happiness and another’s; it’s simply important to do what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest NUMBER of people. But *should* we count the happiness of everyone equally? It’s natural for many people to value the happiness of people they love or feel connected to more than others. But is that right? Utilitarianism would say no: although I might feel better about making my mother happy than about making some random person happy, they’re equal in the moral sense (one person=one person), and making your mother happy matters no more than making any other person happy. Is it right to simply do whatever causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or should we reckon up happiness to certain people–family, friends, people of our same nation, people of our same religion, etc.–at a greater value than happiness in general? What about misery or pain: if I have the choice between causing my brother pain and causing pain to a random man, does it matter who I choose, morally speaking? Why or why not? half page or one page